Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

Time for an incremental start on a "big fix" here?

Well, the removal of the "did it for a living for one day" criteria stemmed the torrent but we still have quite a mess. (I'm an active NPP'er) In essence, for GNG dependent articles, GNG is not being implemented at AFD. And folks that lament the narrowing of the SNG criteria are probably falsely imagining that the GNG standard is what now applies.

Here are two very common situations:

• "Stats only" articles. E.G for a team's season. With zero sources other than for the stats, much less GNG sources or anything even near one GNG source.
• Basic article on a less-notable professional with no sources anywhere near GNG sources. With a few of the basics put into sentences like "played for the xyz team starting in 2012"

There are LOTS of these new articles.

When I AFD one of these, it inevitably goes like this:

• "Of course they are notable" "They are obviously notable" "The NPP'er is stupid not to know they are notable" (with no support for that statement, or just saying that many people know them)
• The NPP'er didn't look hard enough for coverage (the coverage that nobody else found and is not in the article or AFD discussion) And note the use of the term "coverage" instead of "GNG coverage"
• "Coverage exists" but doesn't find any and again note excluding "GNG" from the term when discussing coverage.

I get so tired of this (including getting beat up at AFD) that I just pass the slightly better than normal sports articles and just leave the other non-notable ones in the 13,000 article NPP backlog disaster for someone else to deal with.

One idea would be to create another section in the SNG, another "way in" that roughly says:

• Professional athletes with a larger than typical amount of included sources which provide published independent in-depth coverage of the athlete
• For "seasons" and other articles which are heavy with stats, inclusion of sources which provide published independent in-depth coverage where the coverage is about the season (or topic) as a whole, and substantial prose text developed from those sources.

This wording is structurally a different approach (especially with the emphasis on included sources.) And also while it prima facie / structurally makes it more lenient by offering a different "way in" I think that it will be influential is seeing that GNG (or something close to it) is being followed for GNG dependent articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I think this is as good a place as any for me to raise again the point that the relevant standard for Sports bios, post-2017 NSPORTS RfC, ought to be WP:NBASIC rather than WP:GNG. As far as I can tell, the reason the 2017 discussion didn't reach this conclusion was (1) very many participants in that discussion, both inclusionists and exclusionists concerning sports biographies, had at best only a very approximate underanding of WP:NBIO, and (2) some number of editors participating seemed to be under the misapprehension that NBASIC is more lax than GNG, when (as far as I can determine) it is slightly more restrictive. Without the perception that NBASIC would somehow be a loophole, perhaps there would no longer be a motivation to circumvent the logic of NBIO by asserting that there is one category of humans to which the otherwise universal standard of NBASIC does not apply but instead a marginally more permissive standard (GNG) does? If we are going to change anything, could we please fix this? I don't think there was a clear consensus to override NBASIC for sports biographies, but the (difficult) close has a number of "approximate" conclusions (or apparent conclusions) of which this is the one I personally find most irritating. Newimpartial (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

As I've stated previously, Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Basic criteria is a summary of Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline, placed in the context of biographies. Each of the bolded words in the first sentence of the "Basic criteria" section has a corresponding bullet point in the "General notability guideline" section. The basic criteria section derives from the general notability guideline section and is not a replacement for it. isaacl (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I 99% agree with Isaacl's, response, the other 1% being to note that it includes a provision allowing combining non-GNG sources when GNG sources do not exist. (IMO a bad idea) I'll also note that in the common cases noted above, the respondents aren't even taking the trouble to quote guidelines (including using this provision). With just vague unsupported claims that they/it us "notable" or "sources probably exist". Hence my emphasis on included sources. I realize that this does not fit the classic prima facie reasoning (that notability is about whether the sources exist, not whether anybody has actually provided them) but IMO something is needed to solve a pretty common problem. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

In my view, that's just an additional description of the significant coverage portion of the general notability guideline and so doesn't amount to a replacement of its guidance. isaacl (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

North8K, I understand that some editors understand NBASIC as allowing combining non-GNG sources when GNG sources do not exist, but I think this is a misconception. There is, in fact, nothing in the GNG - at least not that I've seen - that would require editors to insist that the significant coverage element of GNG ought to be assessed per source rather than of the set of available sources as a whole.

Also, while some editors might assume that it does, GNG does not itself contain any "depth" requirement. Therefore, it is equally true under GNG as in NBASIC that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability - that isn't a difference between the two.

What is different is that under NBASIC multiple published secondary sources are required, and are required to be intellectually independent of each other. While the GNG encourages multiple, intellectually independent sources, it does necessarily require them for a topic to achieve GNG notability, which is why I regard NBASIC as (slightly) more strict. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem is twofold, and any "fix" done on this end won't be worth a tinker's damn. There is no rule, regulation, tweak or guideline that will prevent lazy, indifferent AfD voters from being lazy, indifferent, and/or downright stupid. Nor is there any rule, regulation, tweak or guideline that will compel closers to hold by valid policy rather than by headcount. Ravenswing 14:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

If I'm understanding North8000's original post correctly, they're proposing that guidance should be modified to follow what is being done in practice by the evaluators of consensus for deletion discussions, which would bring the two into alignment. Of course, I agree that nothing compels deletion discussion participants to follow previously-established guidance, though doing so may be more persuasive for some, and the guidance on determining rough consensus does not compel evaluators to discount viewpoints that are contrary to guidelines (only views contrary to policy are mentioned). This essentially reduces guidelines to prepackaged sets of arguments that can be used in deletion discussions. (I understand why the editors who like to discuss these matters prefer a grassroots approach to the creation of guidance, but it works best when everyone is willing to go along with a general approach. When there is dissension, it leads to wasted time trying to get people to show up at every discussion so that consensus can be re-established over and over again, and inconsistent results when turnout varies.) isaacl (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I feared that one of the benefits of SNGs was for non-domain experts at NPP to be able to quickly assess popular topics . WP:BEFORE sometimes requires expertise to know where to look, that a basic Google search from those not in the know will miss. With everyone's experience now, I wonder if we can reasonably recreate some SNGs on perennial topics for NPPers, while avoiding non-objective criteria this time.—Bagumba (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  The main issue with wp:before is that, at any given time, the 15 people who do 90% of NPP's, and a 13,000 article backlog there's only so much wp:before a NPP'er can do. And folks amongst the zillion editors who didn't bother to / instead of looking for sources, just beat up the NPP'er for not finding the sources that the complainer never bother to look for or find. I've had sports fans beat me up for not also searching through non-english sources and analyzing them with respect to GNG, at the same time they didn't and don't look for sources. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's hard enough trying to sift through unreliable sources in English search results. Most en.WP editors are ill equipped to use non-English sources and judge reliability or weed out trivial mentions and routine coverage. The problem that was the demise of NSPORTS is that some people assumed without basis that the "top" league(s) of any country of any sport must be notable and have coverage, and the fact that Google came back with any results proved it for them. —Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The two main goals of my proposal are:

• Emphasize included sources, i.e. demonstrated wp:notability.
• Additional emphasis which would weigh in a bit against "stat's only" articles...most as a reminder that they typically don't demonstrate compliance with GNG. There are a lot of people generating lots of stats-only articles.

I guess you could call my proposal to be to add something on the order of an nsports version of WP:NBASIC to nsports, albeit with details a little different, along the lines of my idea above. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

So this remains my idea. Add a version of WP:NBASIC to nsports, which includes requirement of inclusion of GNG or near-GNG sourcing. So this discourages mere unsupported "it exists" claims. Structurally, since it is just another "way in", it doesn't tighten up the requirements. But it would probably be influential towards emphasizing included sources. Technically, by including "near-GNG sourcing, it loosens the requirement, but the current defacto requirement is even looser than that. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, including a reference to a source suitable for demonstrating that the general notability guideline is already part of this guideline. It's the second sentence in the lead paragraph, set in bold. The need for such a reference is also described in the "Basic criteria" section. isaacl (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The existence of guidelines do not preclude !voters ignoring the guideline. Is this post looking to avoid false-positive AfD nomintations (i.e. pages that don't demonstrate notability but are ultimately notable topics) or to improve quality of Afd !votes by participants? —Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The main goals are what I described above, but expanding on the first one, it is to shift things a bit, that the creators/keepers should include and identify GNG sources and the onus is a bit more on them to do so. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Although personally I think the best way to keep Wikipedia viable with its large number of articles is to spread the workload by giving more responsibility to an article creator for including appropriate citations at the start, for better or worse, the consensus of English Wikipedia editors who have discussed this matter in the past still supports stub creation. (I appreciate why those editors feel that way; I just weigh the tradeoffs differently than they.) isaacl (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO the issue isn't stub creation. It's lack of GNG sources in GNG-dependent articles. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, I agree with you, but so far, that viewpoint has not gained consensus support amongst those who have discussed the matter. isaacl (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The first point is already covered in this guideline page. The second is a content issue, which the current consensus of English Wikipedia editors who like to discuss these matters considers to be separate from the standards of having an article. Tweaks about these is just going to give those who like to repeat these points different text to link to. If the evaluators of consensus aren't discounting views contrary to the existing guidelines, I don't think shifts in emphasis is going to alter their deliberations. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think that an incremental path forward will work (and nor will deleting the SNG). The community is clear that at least one GNG source is required for all sportspeople. Any sport-specific wording will inevitably be a guideline, rather than a presumption of notability. That said, we can (and I think we should) suggest that a professional in a top league is more likely to meet GNG than someone who plays for a second- or third- division team. All of that said, I did start a draft of a replacement guideline. I appreciate feedback. Also isaacl did put together a comparison with Wikipedia:Notability (sports). --Enos733 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have incorporated feedback encouraging more prose in my draft. I don't think it will necessarily help editors who want to ignore the SNG, but it could help at NPP or at AFD. - Enos733 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  At least for the top US sports (Am football, basketball, baseball), at this advanced stage of Wikipedia, the players' articles would have been created (and already be notable) long before hitting those criteria. So not much help for NPP. —Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Since the community rejected a "played in a top-tier professional league" standard, the recourse to needing at least one GNG source is sensible even as it doesn't help much at NPP. - Enos733 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Enos733 @Cbl62 The community is clear that at least one GNG source is required for all sportspeople. Yeah, please tell that to the AfD !voters who are insisting that "SPORTCRIT #5 is just a different part of NSPORT and doesn't apply to the athletes who meet a sport-specific criterion" and "SPORTCRIT #5 means that multiple non-SIGCOV sources can be added together" and "SPORTCRIT #5 can be met/overridden with the assumption that someone's achievements "must have" garnered SIGCOV offline". Not to mention the insistence that three-sentence event results announcements are "not routine" and that in-person video interviews count for anything at all... JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  SPORTCRIT #5 is just a different part of NSPORT and doesn't apply to the athletes who meet a sport-specific criterion: I can't really tell what is the expected outcome if a bullet point under "Professional sports people" is met but no signifcant coverage is cited? Have any AfD closes cited this as ambiguous? —Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  The requirement for an article to have a citation to a source, suitable for demonstrating that the general notability guideline is met, is a documentation requirement for all sports biographies within the scope of this guideline. The second sentence in the lead paragraph, set in boldface, covers this requirement. It's not a criterion to presume that suitable sources exist to demonstrate that the general notability guideline is met, so it doesn't really fit in the list under the "Basic criteria" section. I was not able, though, to gain a consensus to move the description of the requirement to another section. isaacl (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  The second sentence in the lead reads, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline Citing that one of the criteria under "Professional sports people" is met could be reasonably argued to satisfy that. —Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  The sentence used to be The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. It was modified by removing "or the sport specific criteria set forth below" after the 2022 RfC, specifically to no longer include the criteria listed under the "Professional sports people" section, to comply with the consensus to require a citation to a source suitable for demonstrating that the general notability guideline is met. isaacl (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well the same people are also arguing that the fact that NSPORT2022 found a consensus not to deprecate NSPORT means that there was a consensus to retain NSPORT as it stood pre-RfC...so... JoelleJay (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, proposals to change this guideline did attain consensus support and changes were made accordingly. To revise it again would need a demonstration that the consensus view has changed. But as previously stated, English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions means people have fairly free rein in the arguments they can put forth. It's left to the discretion of discussion evaluators to decide how to weigh those arguments, in context of the relevant guidance in effect. isaacl (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC close is clear. But merely removing "or the sport specific criteria set forth below" still leaves open the interpretation that "showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline" is satisified by meeting a sport-specific SNG. The loophole needs closing. —Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I don't think saying "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets X" leaves a loophole "or, instead of X, one of the Y listed below". It's not feasible to guard against all interpretations that go directly against the literal wording in the guidance. isaacl (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Requiring that all sports articles contain substantial content in order to exist – something that not a single other subject is held to – is something that I could not support and contradicts the notability page itself: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't review that proposal, but there is a problem that is unique to sports.....massive amounts of "stats only" articles. And the above-described problems with these at AFD. WP:Not is also relevant to these. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Is it unique to sports though? I've seen the same issue with aviation articles and there is currently a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability about several thousand articles about train stations with questionable sourcing. Alvaldi (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree - I don't think it is unique to sports, but I think that it is easier for editors to make changes in a table than to take the next step to find (for sports) season previews or recaps (for stations) information about their construction and include that in the lede sections. - Enos733 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  In this case my comment that you are responding to was about large amounts of 'stats-only articles and I think that that issue is unique to sports. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Anywhere there is an intersection of "enthusiasts" and "topics are neatly available in detailed off-wiki databases" will produce rapid stub proliferation, especially if the initial articles go unnoticed long enough to generate a walled garden. JoelleJay (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  NOTSTATS is a content issue. The content can be boldly deleted. The topic's notability and existing policy is the bigger dilemma. Per WP:NEXIST:

  The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article.

  Without SNGs, that task required more due-diligence and domain expertise. —Bagumba (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• In order to define the problem more clearly, it would be helpful if someone could provide some examples of what they consider to be "stats only" articles. Sports coverage naturally and properly includes statistical information. Stats are how we measure performance and importance of athletes and sport teams. What WP:NOTSTATS says is that we shouldn't have articles that simply recite a load of statistics and offer no context or explanation. Here is the precise language of NOTSTATS: "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." Cbl62 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty widespread for sports. I'd hate to put any individual editor on the spot by making their article an example here. Typicall the only prose is a few sentences derived from the stats, and there are not GNG sources. Maybe if I find several it wouldn't be so bad. I've even asked for guidance on these at project sports (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#"Stats only" sports articles on non-SNG topics) and feedback sees to be that they should not exist. But large amounts of them are routinely being produced. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

OK I'll start adding some random ones currently in the NPP que: North8000 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 2014 Bhayangkara F.C. season
• 2024–25 in Indian football
• ÍBV (men's handball)
• 1969–70 Northampton Town F.C. season
• 1981–82 Northampton Town F.C. season
• 1982–83 Northampton Town F.C. season
• 1983–84 Northampton Town F.C. season
• 2022–23 Dhaka Second Division Cricket League
• 2024 Liga Dominicana de Fútbol This one has more prose but it's just a statement derived from the stats plus a restatement of the general rules

Thanks. The examples help. I see this as more of a GNG problem that a STATS problem. I'm more familiar with the American football area, and, there too, we have many season articles stubs sourced only to comprehensive databases like Sports Reference, the now-defunct College Football Data Warehouse, or a team's self-published media guide. A decade or so ago, there was a tendency to create season articles sourced only to such databases. I was guilty of that myself, and I've been going back to add better sourcing to those articles over the last couple years. I've also seen a growing tendency to create season articles for very minor, lower tier teams where SIGCOV is unlikely to exist. One possible solution would be to extend prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC to season articles. Prong 5 states: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." If consensus supports it, we could change "sports biographies" to "sports biographies and season articles". I would have no problem with such an amendment. Cbl62 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: "I see this as more of a GNG problem that a STATS problem." Those are sort of saying the same thing; the stats just kind of obscure and enable the problem..no GNG sources and thus no real article content.North8000 (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Some examples from the college football context include 1880 CCNY Lavender football team, 1884 Amherst football team, 1915 Cal Poly Mustangs football team, 1916 Tusculum Pioneers football team, and 2013 Rhodes Lynx football team. Extending SPORTBASIC, prong 5, would help the problem however it is characterized. Cbl62 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that that would be a good albeit small move. It doesn't make a major shift because that clause/requirement is not implemented even for the articles (bios) that are currently included.North8000 (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of those above seasons, e.g. 1969–70 Northampton Town F.C. season, list offline books that discuss everything included. 2024–25 in Indian football is a broad article on a concept absolutely notable: Indian football receives extensive coverage each year. Remember that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article – just because the shape of the article may be poor, absolutely does not mean the topic does not warrant an article. A good number of them have GA / FA potential if there's an interested editor; see e.g. this FA on a fifth-tier English football team's season. Giving the greenlight to remove any season article not with a SIGCOV source (which, for season articles, can have very different interpretations – I once remember a season article with decent prose and over 70 long newspaper sources as well as a half-dozen books, etc., being advocated for deletion because 'none of them are sigcov as we don't have academic journals from 50 years afterwards examining this particular season in-depth') would result in the removal of many thousands of notable topics. It feels like we'd be moving backwards. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The difficulty is how can NPP reasonably determine a notable season page from a crufty one? —Bagumba (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it such an issue that requiring the mass removal of thousands of notable articles is the only solution? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not think any mass removal would be appropriate either, but extending prong 5 to season articles puts the onus on article creators to come up with at least one piece of SIGCOV in the article -- which is not difficult for a notable team season. I, too, recall the AfD where someone argued that academic journals were needed to pass GNG - the argument was ridiculous and did not prevail. Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I had to take it to deletion review myself to prevent that argument from prevailing, and without my intervention, it would have. You know that many of the editors who created these season articles are no longer active, and know that any requirement of significant coverage in the article for a particularly disliked type of article is going to result in attempts to mass remove them. Yes, it is not difficult for me to add a source for e.g. 1937 Philadelphia Eagles season, but times that number by 2,000, and suddenly it is not so easy any more. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, maybe take that article as an example, could you find a GNG (or even near-GNG) source for the season? North8000 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The articles in question are 1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season and 1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season (130+ refs total with well-sourced prose), if you'd like to take a look. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My post was under your 1937 Philadelphia Eagles season post. Those other two would not even be in question. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, my copy of Ray Didinger's Eagles Encyclopedia devotes a page to it, not to mention there's a good chance one of the 3,000 newspaper stories on the Eagles from a three-month span in 1937 is significant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is sort of a microcosm of the discussions that occur. Instead of settling it by providing one GNG or near-GNG source, you are in essence saying "go look at thousands of search engine hits, there must be one in there somewhere." North8000 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I did provide a GNG source: the Eagles Encyclopedia. I also thought it worth mentioning that for some of these, there is so much coverage. E.g. I could easily develop something of GA-length or better if I tried for it. That may not be possible for all of them (all the 'stats' articles), but will be for a large percentage if someone puts in the effort (see e.g. the fifth-tier season that became an FA I mentioned above). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I respectfully disagree with you on several levels:

• First you are talking about undeveloped articles whereas what is being discussed is articles where wp:notability has not been established.
• Second, I was responding to a request for some "stats-only" articles, you are implying that I said that all of these should be deleted. You also cherrypicked the 1 of the 9 that I provided that has the most likelyhood of expansion.
• Third, structurally, the small change discussed is just a tweak in the SNG. While it might (hopefully) have a bit of a psychological effect that people should actually provide at least one such source, it doesn't structurally affect the GNG route which is the route claimed on these. And even withing that limited scope, it merely says "find one source of the type that it is already required to have instead of just claiming that they exist without finding one.
• Even if there were an impactful structural change of requirements, equating it to a deletionfest of existing articles vs. something that the community would want applied on new articles and the two are not automatically linked and community consensus is usually to not automatically consider them to be one and the same.
• Anything in notability guidelines does not simply greenlight removal. The folks weighing it at AFD do that.
• This subthread is about "stats only" being mere a flag of no suitable sources and thus no content (other than stats). So we're talking about those rather than the type of article which you are describing.
• Removal of thousands of notable articles based on wp:notability is sort of an oxymoron.  :-)
• You are in essence saying that a "lots of suitable coverage probably exists" argument should be sufficient. This tiny proposed change just leans a bit towards saying "OK, find just one"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While the article is very undersourced, the ÍBV (men's handball) team was the runner-up for the national handball championship last season, one of the most popular sport in the country. Every aspect of that team and other teams under the ÍBV umbrella get pretty well covered in the national media.[1]. Alvaldi (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I just wish the articles people made weren't so incredibly trashy. I see the Northampton ones up above are all using Weebly extensively as a source, which is just some person's blog. I honestly have no idea why Weebly and Blogspot aren't on the banned sources to even use list. Silverseren^C 17:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, I was responding to a request for "stats-only" articles and just quickly came up with 9. It was NOT me saying that I think that every one of them should be deleted/merged. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

In case anybody is wondering, my own opinions come from two completely different places:

• As a Wikipedian, I think that Wikipedia is about creating useful-to-the-public enclyclopedia articles and a nothing-but-stats "article" is not that or even a contribution towards that. An article on a somewhat prominent team or player which has substantial article-type content from published sources, I'd like to be in/kept, even if it falls a bit short on not 100% meeting GNG. Which is sort of the norm anyway.
• As a NPP'er I'd like the dilemma resolved one way or the other. By even a slightly relaxed version of GNG we should be AFD'ing about 75% of new sports articles. But when taking even the weakest of them to AFD all of the above stuff and grief happens.....hand waving and complaints, but no sources found that are even near-GNG.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• A couple points:

1. There was worry that prong 5 of SPORTBASIC would lead to mass deletion of notable articles, and it has not. I think it has had a beneficial effect of telling article creators to do some due diligence before creating sports biographies. The "substub" problem has greatly reduced with biographies, as we no longer see mass creation of such substubs sourced only to a database. I think extending that standard to seasons would have a similar positive impact on new article creation.

2. I reject the notion that feature stories about each of a team's games do not consitute SIGCOV of the team. The nature of sports coverage is that teams are covered in pre-season articles, in pre-game stories, in post-game stories, and occasionally in post-season awards and wrap-up coverage. As between these, SIGCOV is SIGCOV IMO. They all represent coverage of the team. Otherwise, we would have folks trying to argue that articles on major seasons like 1961 Texas Longhorns football team aren't notable because the coverage arises in the context of each of the games played by the team. The real inquiry and debate IMO should focus on whether the coverage (be it pre-season, during season, or post-season) is truly "significant".

Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

There was worry that prong 5 of SPORTBASIC would lead to mass deletion of notable articles, and it has not. – you may not agree with the characterization, but WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:LUGSTUBS2 have absolutely resulted in the removal of many notable articles. Not to mention that many other likely notable articles have been removed gradually by that criterion, due to it meaning absolutely no WP:BEFORE is necessary – one can simply claim 'fails GNG' without any effort whatsoever and that's the end of it (e.g. does anyone seriously think arguably Niger's greatest athlete and coach from the offline era has zero coverage?). Why should sports season be held to a standard literally no other class of article – with the exception of sports biographies – is held to? You may personally reject the notion that feature stories about each of a team's games do not consitute SIGCOV of the team but that doesn't mean the anti-sport editors are going to agree with it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding to a few subthreads, while many topics have promise for development into an article, IMO a "nothing but stats" article is not a real start on such. IMO it's sort of like saying I provided a can of car wax called it "partially finished Ferrari, which could become a really good car". North8000 (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Defining "routine coverage"

The prevailing position in sportsperson AfDs seems to be that brief blurbs announcing transactions, event results, injuries, upcoming events, etc. are considered routine coverage for the purposes of NSPORT and do not contribute to GNG for athletes (regardless of how many there are or the relative importance of the corresponding events). There is a bit of fuss over what the length/depth/analysis threshold is for something to be "routine", but I think there is general agreement that the type of news coverage that is put out by a source for basically every athlete update or event in its purview should be disregarded as falling under our NOTNEWS policy routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. Certainly content that is derived mostly or entirely from press releases is both routine and non-independent, and multiple news outlets simultaneously running very similar reports is a good indicator that this has occurred. Similarity in the types of details and reporting style of one publisher for multiple different athletes or events is another hallmark of MILL coverage.

I propose we try to articulate this position into NSPORT guidance in a way that neither implies all coverage of transactions/injuries/events is routine nor implies such topics are the only things that can be routine. We should also reiterate that routine coverage never counts toward notability, no matter how many sources report it or how many separate events trigger such coverage of an athlete (getting injured three times a season or bouncing between a bunch of mid-tier teams shouldn't be a path to notability!). JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Something along the lines of WP:CORPTRIV:

standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as ... of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel

Coverage that analyzes the impact of the move to the player or team could help to establish notability. —Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

How about

Reports on transactions, injuries, event results, interviews, awards, and other standard topics of sports news are often routine and must contain significant secondary independent[note] analysis beyond run-of-the-mill coverage to contribute to notability.
[Note] Take care to ensure coverage is not just lightly refactored from press releases.

Yes, I know this is mostly redundant with existing P&Gs and should not be necessary to state here, but I think it's important to have some guidance explicitly noting that transactional news etc. often falls under what we consider routine coverage. It is very common for editors unfamiliar with sports[2]Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Dennis (soccer)[3][4][5][6] to present a few 4-sentence transfer announcements as "SIGCOV" and claim that it's not routine because "ROUTINE is for events", or that since it's not "sports scores" (language from WP:ROUTINE) then it doesn't qualify as routine under NOTNEWS. Pointing to specific guidance would help terminate these headaches earlier on. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest an amended "Basic reports on transactions, injuries, event results, interviews, awards, and other standard topics of sports news are often routine and must contain significant secondary independent[note] analysis beyond run-of-the-mill coverage to contribute to notability. Detailed examples of the above are unlikely to be considered routine

[Note] Take care to ensure coverage is not just lightly refactored from press releases." GiantSnowman 17:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the "basic" wording is good, but I'm concerned that "detailed examples" could be interpreted as meaning "lots of details = SIGCOV" even when the details aren't actually secondary independent commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"In depth"? A lengthy interview with a national paper, for example, could be SIGCOV GiantSnowman 18:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If it contains secondary independent commentary, yes, but the length or source prominence doesn't matter if everything that's in-depth is from quotes. JoelleJay (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - hence why we need to make it clear what could be non-routine. GiantSnowman 18:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't must contain significant secondary independent[note] analysis beyond run-of-the-mill coverage to contribute to notability describe what can be non-routine? JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think a lengthy interview in a major newspaper IS generally significant coverage, even if it’s just the questions and their answers. A paper like that won’t devote much space to non-notable people. I do think interview material can either be significant or not, for example coaches are “interviewed” in press conferences after every contest - that is Routine. I would recommend leaving “interviews” out of the list of routine coverage because inclusion in such lists leads to blanket statements later. Things that are a grey area should be left off for clarity’s sake in my opinion. The rest of the list are items that are routine almost 100% of the time. Rikster2 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It may be significant coverage, but any content coming from the subject is by definition non-independent and does not count toward GNG, and questions from the interviewer rarely actually contain secondary analysis and so wouldn't count toward GNG either. Interviews are explicitly listed in policy as primary sources too so by default are not considered notability-contributing. JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa - if the reporter and the source are clearly independent then the format of the significant coverage doesn’t make it less than independent for establishing GNG. The words of the subject are not necessarily useful for confirming content because they have a vested interest in showing themselves in the best light. The opposite is also true, sometimes sources can be used for factual information but do not count towards notability - like a player winning an award can be sourced from his club’s website, but it doesn’t count towards notability. If the guideline says otherwise it’s off base. A paper such as The NY Times will not devote the space needed for an in depth interview to a subject who isn’t notable - it’s against their financial interests Rikster2 (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

...How are the subject's comments on themselves independent coverage? SIGCOV does not mean, and does not incorporate, "the source's choice to cover a subject"; it applies strictly to how much IRS coverage there is in a source. Any coverage from the subject themselves is obviously not independent (or secondary) discussion by a third party and does not contribute to GNG -- this has very strong consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If there is such clear consensus then please quote it. Everything I read basically said that interviews are complex and basically “it depends,” which is why I think it should be stricken from the list. The NY Times is an independent source. They are not covering the subject for any reason other than the interest they think their readership has about that source. Let me highlight the difference that the subject in this case is not independent when speaking about themselves. To me that means it’s not to be taken as strictly factual, but it absolutely is independent coverage of the subject, which is what we should be taking into account when assessing notability. Self-published interviews or those published by their team or league (as examples) are definitely not independent and should not be used to assess notability. Rikster2 (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It's the source's secondary analysis/commentary on a subject that counts as GNG coverage, not what they repeat from the subject. Just in the context of recent sportspeople AfDs I've participated in, we have admin closures/comments stating The argument that interviews are admissible is an oversimplification; interviews may count toward GNG when they have intellectually independent content[7] and I am more persuaded by the delete arguments around the necessity of independent sourcing for a BLP then keep arguments that articles that are basically interviews are independent.[8] and That leaves us with two sources: the Marianas Variety article, which is entirely a non-independent interview (every sentence is either paraphrases Aninzo or quotes him directly)[9]. We also have comments from sports article regulars like @Wjemather an interview transcript that contains no independent commentary, so also does not contribute towards GNG.[10]. The only way an interview can contribute to GNG is if it contains significant secondary independent analysis from the outlet itself; that's the "context" being referenced in our policy on primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

UTC)

opinions by closing admins are interesting, but where is the policy or guideline behind them that says interviews MUST have something beyond the interview transcript to be admissible for GNG discussions. We in essence are drafting something that will be used as a guideline here so IMO keep something like interviews, which requires additional context to make the right decision, out of it Rikster2 (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

We have policy stating interviews are widely considered primary sources. We also have the fact that content directly from the subject is by definition not independent coverage of the subject and certainly does not contain secondary commentary on the subject. An NYT interview printing what the subject said about themselves is no different from the subject just being invited to write an article about themselves for the NYT: the content that is SIGCOV of the subject is not someone else's analysis of them, and the choice by NYT to platform the subject is not itself secondary coverage of them.
More AfD admin comments: This article on a tattoo artist is sourced mainly from interviews. Being primary sources, they don't help us establish his notability.[11]. When the content of the source comes from the person's mouth, that makes it both a primary source, and a non-independent source as a person cannot be independent of himself. If Wikipedia policy isn't good enough, here's a UMASS Boston guide that very clearly spells it out, and here is another guide that points this out, and here's the American Library Association pointing it out. Both Wikipedia policy and scholarly consensus is in agreement with the fact that interviews of this type are a primary source. When the person being interviewed is also the subject of the article, it makes it a non-independent source, as the person the content is coming from is the subject.[12] JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not the same. The content of the interview counts as a primary source, but the fact that the NYT considers the subject worthy of an interview counts towards widespread coverage in a reliable source per WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

...How does "the fact that the NYT considers the subject worthy of an interview" constitute coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention? The act of choosing an interviewee is not itself coverage that can be quantified; only the content on the subject is applicable to GNG. If "getting interviewed" counted whatsoever, why is 100% of the guidance in SIGCOV focused on what is being said about the subject, and the requirements that this coverage be independent and secondary, while 0% is related to "being widespread" or "source prestige"? Per policy, a source where none of the content is secondary and/or independent would be inadmissible as the basis of an article, so how exactly would we even be able to use a simple Q&A interview (or 2) to write an article? JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Will you please quote and link a policy as opposed to saying “we have a policy” and quoting closing admin comments? Closing admins are making necessary interpretations of policy to move AfDs along but their words are not de facto policies. If you look at the essay WP:INTERVIEW (I know, just an essay), it shows that interviews as a source type are too complex and compounded with if/thens to be treated in the blanket manner the proposed wording for this guideline puts forth. This is why I recommend dropping by “interviews” from the list. Rikster2 (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, no one is suggesting that one source (interview or otherwise) should be the sole source of an article. The question is if a lengthy interview in an acknowledged reliable, independent source should count towards notability. From what I read the answer is clearly “it depends,” not "no." Rikster2 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Two (or any number of) Q&A interviews where all the SIGCOV comes from the interviewee would still not meet GNG. It would still be impossible to write an NPOV article because no one independent has written their own distillation of why the subject is important and what the most salient facts about them are.

Again, the only thing that "depends" is whether the content around the interview contains significant secondary independent coverage -- which is already acknowledged as contributory to GNG in the proposal. JoelleJay (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

From WP:OR:

Further examples of primary sources include: [...] editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews [...] For definitions of primary sources: The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, [...] Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."

The only complexity with interviews is the fact that they can sometimes contain independent secondary commentary, which, when significant, may contribute to GNG.

I added interviews to the list because it's consistent with our invocation of "routine interviews" in WP:YOUNGATH. At no point is my proposal making a blanket declaration that interviews or any other media are always routine: all I say is that they often are (which is absolutely true given the enormous amount of post-match interviews and quoted comments from the subject about e.g. transfers) and then reiterate what is already expected of GNG: must contain significant secondary independent[note] analysis beyond run-of-the-mill coverage to contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that this is an excellent and important thread.(I'm active at NPP and thus at AFD) On a scale of 0 to 10, above we're debating whether a "5" passes but they are routinely kept when they don't even have a "2". The usual routine at AFD is that people just say "coverage exists" and consider that to be enough without even mentioning whether it is GNG coverage.....actually avoiding any mention of GNG. I'd like to see some practical guidance created, evenif it does allow a "5" in. Emphasis should be on that it is in the article (even if added during the AFD process) instead of just vague handwaving like "coverage probably / obviously exists". On the interview question, I think that the "middle of the road" is that a substantial interview by a published source counts somewhat towards wp:notability. Not enough to greenlight it as counting as a full GNG source,, but enough to fit an accepted "middle of the road" delete/keep criteria for sports which is a sort of "2/3 meets GNG". I know that this post is a bit ethereal, but I'd be happy to more specifically help on this quest. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• There are multiple variations above on what constitutes "routine" coverage. The opening salvo referred to "brief blurbs announcing transactions, event results, injuries, upcoming events, etc." I think most everyone would agree those types of blurbs by definition are "routine" rather than "significant coverage." The problem arises when folks try to impose elements far above what GNG requires. For example, there is one varition above saying that detailed factual reportage is not enough and the there needs to be "independent analsyis". This is not what is required by WP:SIGCOV ("addresses the topic directly and in detail"), and it is unwarranted. I'm fine with clarifying that "brief blurbs" aren't enough (although that's pretty well established) but strongly opposed to imposing a new rule for sports coverage that detailed factual coverage (i.e. SIGCOV) isn't enough unless there is also independent analysis. For such a profound change to be considered, it would absolutely need to be subject ot a widely-publicized request for comment. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  My objection to "detailed" is that many reports can contain a lot of "details" on a subject that are still not independent or secondary -- e.g. game statistics -- and that we don't need to state that "detailed coverage counts" when we're already saying must contain significant secondary independent[note] analysis beyond run-of-the-mill coverage to contribute to notability. If you have a problem with "analysis" that can just be substituted with "commentary" or whatever -- the point is that the coverage needs to be secondary rather than things like primary play-by-plays and other events the author experienced themselves and is now recounting (accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event). JoelleJay (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

IMO the common problem isn't arguments about edge case coverage, it's making statements about "coverage" without even addressing the GNG question. And this is an issue unique to sports because routine coverage is immensely prolific because it is itself a major form of- entertainment. A modest proposal: Add the following: "Discussions about notability-related coverage should discuss GNG suitability of specific coverage" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

What? The point of our guidance on "routine" is to reemphasize NOTNEWS policy, which is a separate consideration from GNG. A local news recap on a pro singles tennis match might be SIGCOV but it is also clearly routine and should not count towards the notability of either the match or the players. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your proposal is too broad. Any coverage could be fitted into your definition such as all interviews, all news stories begiining with transfer news, injuries, match reports. The reality is that these types of coverage may still count towards WP:GNG if they contain significant independent coverage about the subject and analysis and may not count towards it if they have no significant coverage about the subject. Each source needs to be assessed individually not with a broad brush. As for definitions of primary sources, reviews are on Wikipedia counted as secondary sources regardless of academic guidelines, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

How is the proposal

Reports on transactions, injuries, event results, interviews, awards, and other standard topics of sports news are often routine and must contain significant secondary independent[note] analysis beyond run-of-the-mill coverage to contribute to notability.
[Note] Take care to ensure coverage is not just lightly refactored from press releases.

too broad when it is essentially the same as what you said: The reality is that these types of coverage may still count towards WP:GNG if they contain significant independent coverage about the subject and analysis and may not count towards it if they have no significant coverage about the subject.? JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Absolutely not! Such a dramatic change would need to be the subject of a well-publicized request for comment. I would strenuously oppose it as an inappropriate attempt (i) to apply even more extra hurdles to sports articles above and beyond the GNG standards applied to non-sports biographies, (ii) to radically change the status quo by deeming virtually all fact-based newspaper sports reportage to be "routine", regardless of depth of coverage, unless there is independent "analysis", and also (iii) to extend elements of Wikipedia:Notability (events) (i.e., NOTNEWS) to biographical articles. It would also lead to unending debate over whether in-depth sports SIGCOV has a sufficient level of "analysis" as opposed to reporting on facts. Cbl62 (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  What "dramatic change"? Who are you replying to? All I'm doing is mentioning which forms of coverage are most often identified as "routine" in sports, something that happens uncontroversially every day in sports AfDs and is anyway already invoked multiple times in our guideline on sportspeople. must contain significant secondary independent analysis beyond run-of-the-mill coverage to contribute to notability is literally just reiterating what GNG says with the added reminder to keep in mind our policy on NOTNEWS when evaluating the types of media alluded to by other WP:ROUTINE coverage and reports beyond routine game coverage and clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage -- unless, as I asked before, you are construing "analysis" to be a much stronger action than what is already implied by "secondary"?

  And as an aside, NOTNEWS most definitely is not constrained to just events, as should be clear from Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. and For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities. JoelleJay (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NRIVALRY

Proposal to clarify and expand WP:NRIVALRY based on common interpretations of notability guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT:

To show notability, a rivalry must receive significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that analyze the rivalry in an overview-level historical manner.

Any objections? Left guide (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Support: None from me. That's a sensible change. Ravenswing 10:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Support It sounds perfect! Conyo14 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Clarifies/reinforces what GNG means (coverage OF the topic of the article, not just coverage that is somehow related to the topic) in an area where that is needed. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Changing my support vote. On second thought/ as pointed out, "analysis" does add an additional requirement beyond GNG and I don't see that as a good thing. But to reinforce, GNG means coverage of the rivalry, not just synthesizing a topic / article validated by mentions of a rivalry. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. If the "topic" of the rivalry receives SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources, then it passes GNG and nothing more is needed. This proposal goes far beyond GNG including additional requirements that the coverage must (i) consist of "analysis" (whatever that means), (ii) be of an "overview" nature (as opposed to in-depth coverage on a case-by-case basis or coverage of the rivalry in recent years), and (iii) be "historical" (whatever that means, i.e., does coverage have to include discussion of the rivalry's origins or games occurring years ago?). These extra requirements go far beyond GNG. If GNG is strictly enforced, we don't need to add these extra elements. Cbl62 (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Cbl62's line of reasoning. Deferring to WP:GNG is more than enough, no further clarification is needed here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Cbl62. GNG is sufficient; we don't need to add further stipulations. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as "analyze the rivalry in an overview-level historical manner" is ambiguous. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Left guide, it would be helpful if you could substantiate what you mean by "analyze the rivalry in an overview-level historical manner". I suspect what you mean is that if an independent, reliable, secondary source has a piece about, say, a 2019 matchup between two teams, and simply calls the clash a "rivalry" without discussing any history or context of that rivalry, that wouldn't count toward demonstrating the notabliblty of the rivalry? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Appreciate the inquiry. Yes, your suspicion of my meaning is accurate. It's just a bold idea I thought might help shore up the notability for rivalries as an extension or mirror of other broader notability guidelines, but it's hard to explain more granularly in my own words. Best I can offer is Bagumba's comment in a related essay talk page. If there's no consensus for the change, that's cool too, I don't really care either way. I don't typically hang out on major guideline talk pages and make proposals like this, and don't have the energy to engage in a long debate about this. Y'all can also feel free to tweak it if there's a way to find something more agreeable for everyone. Left guide (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Spitballing comment: if we want to add guidance, I think it would be helpful to add what is or isn't considered sigcov, perhaps as an additional sentence to the current section. I follow @Bagumba's talk, so I had seen this discussion and largely agree that it's easy to create these rivalry articles based on a couple superficial references to "series history" and a lot of individual game results. Something to the effect of "Significant coverage of a rivalry should include, but isn't limited to, coverage of the history of matchups between the teams" or maybe language borrowed from WP:NLIST: "results as a group or set", instead of individual matchups. Left guide, it might also be helpful in the alternative to start an essay that some of us can contribute to, with examples of what a non-notable rivalry looks like. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cbl62. Not every rivalry has to equate to Bears-Packers. If I can find 5-7 (reliable) sources that definitively use the term "rivalry" to define the relationship between two teams, than I'm ok with it. The additional clarification seems to achieve a higher standard and appears to be more a solution looking for a problem. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't oppose some guidance for which rivalries should have their own article, but I too find the phrase "analyze the rivalry in an overview-level historical manner" too ambiguous to be workable. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any requirement that goes above and beyond WP:GNG, per Cbl62 and others. I would support linking to or discussing WP:ROUTINE in a second sentence of the guideline though. Discuss some uses of "rivalry" not being significant coverage. This guideline or another one at WP:NSPORT should also mention the standalone notability of trophies. We should also mention that a trophy (Governor's Victory Bell), named matchup (Confusion Bowl), or other non-routine significant coverage like that can be notable and spawn a "series" article without the matchup being an explicit "rivalry" that matches the intensity of one like Yankees–Red Sox rivalry. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per PK-WIKI. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support I get the opposes, but there are lots of people who start articles on non-notable rivalries. There's a tendency for American sportswriters especially to use the word "rival" willy-nilly and then we get an article on two teams who are not actually rivals, but some sportswriter somewhere used "rivals" once and so someone gets the green light to write an article. I don't actually think this would actually change anything as others are suggesting, but would make sure that we are actually writing rivalry articles about two teams who are rivals, whether it's as big as say Dinamo-Hajduk or as small as two minor league college football teams who play for a rivalry trophy. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose primarily per North8000, Cbl62. While I understand that we sometimes get articles on non-notable rivalries because a sportswriter used the term "rivalry" in one or two newspaper articles, I don't see that we are getting so many of those as to be unmanageable. If more clarification is needed for rivalry notability, we can perhaps work on that, but (as Cbl62 explains) the proposal here goes too far. Rlendog (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Explanatory essay-ify? - I think that the oppose arguments do identify that this could be interpreted as an additional requirement above and beyond GNG. That having been said, it's not uncommon for new editors to fail to understand what GNG is actually requiring of them, and make a SYNTH-y jump to interpret coverage of individual games between two teams identified in passing as rivals to be coverage of the rivalry. I'm not aware of any issue of AfD discussions closing contra-GNG on the basis of this misunderstanding, so I'd say that generally the community knows where the line is on interpreting these sources. With all that in mind, I think a low-jargon explanation of what kinds of coverage of sports teams exist and what is typically considered significant coverage of a rivalry could help inform editors who jump straight into this area of editing without prior practice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cbl62. I feel this is a solution to a non-existent problem. Alvaldi (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Further comment. Calls for a new guideline or essay appear to be solutions in search of a problem. The record of rivalry AfDs shows that WP:GNG is a sufficient guideline that editors are applying to effectively control efforts to create unsupported "rivalry" articles. In the year preceding the proposal, the existing standard has resulted in the deletion of 16 rivalry articles, just in the context of American football:

1 Boston College–Syracuse football rivalry - deleted 8 July 2024

2 Minnesota–Penn State football rivalry - deleted 25 June 2024

3 Panthers–Seahawks rivalry - deleted 29 February 2024

4 Butler–Drake football rivalry - deleted 4 January 2024

5 Elm City rivalry - deleted 14 December 2023

6 Arizona–Texas Tech football rivalry - deleted 8 December 2023

7 Appalachian State–Charlotte rivalry - deleted 4 December 2023

8 Nebraska–Texas football rivalry - deleted 3 December 2023

9 Penn State–Temple football rivalry - deleted 3 December 2023

10 Constitution State Rivalry - deleted 2 December 2023

11 Georgia–Kentucky football rivalry - deleted 28 November 2023

12 Holy War (Merrimack–Holy Cross) - deleted 28 November 2023

13 Brain Bowl (MIT–WPI) - deleted 28 November 2023

14 River City Rivalry - deleted 26 November 2023

15 Arkansas–Arkansas State rivalry - deleted 24 November 2023

16 Charlotte–East Carolina rivalry - deleted 24 November 2023

Cbl62 (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should the following paragraph be added to WP:NMOTORSPORT?

RfC: Should the following paragraph be added to WP:NMOTORSPORT?

10. Meet the following criteria for the the respective single seater series: A driver who has met at least one of the following criteria for single seater racing:

• Completion of one full season or a race winner in a Formula Regional series.
• Completion of one full season or a race winner in W Series/F1 Academy.
• Podium finish in the Macau Grand Prix (single seater).
• Champion or runner up in a Formula 4 series.

note: strikethrough text was replaced by underlined text after the proposal per the discussion.

GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Long statement: Since WP:NMOTORSPORT was originally written, there has been an increase in the amount of, popularity of, and coverage of different feeder series (FIA Formula 2, FIA Formula 3, Formula Regional, and Formula 4) in real life. As a result, there has also been expanded coverage of these series-including drivers-on Wikipedia. My estimation is that the guideline was written prior to 2016, and the current layout of these feeder series did not exist at the time. Many feeder series articles get disputed at AfC and AfD, so implementing this change will greatly help the growing group of editors in this topic area. I have made this into an RfC per community advice, and due to the fact I was unable to recieve concensus at the links below: [13][14] (note: I have changed some wording from these two, so things I stated there may be inaccurate or I have changed my opinion). This is my first RfC, so I apologize if this was a little messy. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• The proposal gives no context. That is, it proposes a new paragraph for that notability guideline, but does not show what circumstances have arisen that make it necessary to add that paragraph. There is also no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been tried, let alone exhausted. Please don't jump straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC unless existing discussions have reached deadlock. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, thank you for the reply. I was under the impression that I am supposed to leave a long statement under my post that explains the situation. I have done that, as you can see above. In that post I linked the two places where I have tried it; WikiProject talk: slight pushback from people with invalid arguments that didn't apply, no consensus. I then tried it on WP:N Talk, and I got very little traffic, and once again, no consensus. My options left were to either go to VPP, be bold and do it myself (which is risky since it could be contested), or create an RfC. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  A deadlocked discussion isn't required to start an RfC to give guidance the status of a guideline, but usually it's not necessary to have an RfC to modify the sports-specific notability guidelines. Ideally there would be prior discussion among interested editors about what should go in a guideline. Typically that would be first among editors who are knowledgeable about the subject in question, and then on this talk page to gain some broader perspective. After agreement here, the guidance page can be updated. If there are problems with any of the sports-specific notability guidelines that aren't resolved in discussion here, then discussion can be pursued at Wikipedia talk:Notability.

  Getting feedback and making appropriate changes accordingly is a valuable part of crafting a useful guideline. Note as per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ § Q5, the guideline should have criteria that, if met, means that the sports figure is highly likely to have significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources. Also, [s]ubsequent to the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, proposing a guideline for the notability of an athlete purely based on their participation in a non-championship final or non-Olympic event is likely to meet opposition. isaacl (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  @GalacticVelocity08: Whilst I see that you have provided some context (and links) in your !vote, what I meant was that there is no context before the "Survey" subheading. See for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on rescoping WikiProject Eurovision. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  My apologizes, that was the intention. I will move it to the correct spot shortly. I think that paragraph sums up the situation/background/goal, so if you would like additional information, please let me know. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Other sports SNGs had their "minimum appearance" criteria struck, but WP:NMOTORSPORT still has criteria with "one full season" and WP:GOLF has "one full year".—Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Was just coming here to say this. Is SIGCOV applies and guidance such as NFOOTBALL has been removed, why should NMOTORSPORT/NGOLF etc. remain? GiantSnowman 10:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  TNT NSPORTS? The biggest impact I've notcied is to new page patrollers who are not domain experts. They have no quick test, and WP:BEFORE is difficult if you're not familiar with the subject and how to easily search, and risk getting beaten down at WP:AFDs. With the amount of community time sucked into discussions here for maintenance of a now toothless guideline, TNT should be a strong consideration if helping NPPs is not a goal.—Bagumba (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  The test is 'does this article meet SIGCOV' not 'how many months has this dude been in the F1 Academy - 12 is fine, 11 is not'? GiantSnowman 11:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  It would be more that 12 is fine, 11 may or may not be depending if another guideline is met, but some people misapply SNGs. —Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  I can personally confirm that NMOTORSPORT (I only do motorsports, so can't speak on the other sub-SNGs) is misused at AfC and AfD very frequently to definitively show notability, when that is not the intended use. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• (summoned by the bot) The proposed text is too ambiguous, at least for me as someone who doesn't follow motorsports. Does the subject need to meet all of these criteria, or just one? I'm guessing the intention is just one, in which case it should be rephrased with something like "any of the following criteria". Moreover, the proposed phrasing doesn't match the existing syntax of the guideline, which begins "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a motorsport figure if they are:". Presumably the proposed addition should begin with something like "A driver who". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that is my intention. That was just bad phrasing on my part. This phrasing could be done:

  "A driver who meets any of the following criteria for one of these single seater series:"

  (i also just realized there was a double the in the original post. oops.)

  If you think that sounds good, I could modify the RfC to have that instead. As I'm extremely new to this process, could you just confirm for me that I'm allowed to modify it after it was opened? Thank you for the input. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's okay to modify the RfC text, since this is more of a stylistic fix rather than a change to the substance of the proposal, but you should make clear that it was modified partway through the discussion, either with strikethrough and underlining so it's clear what was removed and added or with a parenthetical explanation (or both). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

   Done Thank you for the help. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think NSPORTS is in an odd but okay state at the moment, but I cannot support this unless you can prove that everyone who falls into these categories is virtually guaranteed to meet GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Since NMOTORSPORT is an SNG that is "may have significant coverage" and not showing notability alone, not every single individual may meet GNG perfectly. Some individuals will get enough coverage and some won't. However, if you take a look at the criteria that I left and look at the individuals who have met it within the last couple years, most of them will have articles. There are websites such as formulascout.com or feederseries.net that are regularly used to help meet SIGCOV, ontop of any local/regional/national news outlets who write about the driver. I can provide more info if you need, let me know what you would like specifically. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  I wish you luck. It was demonstrated before that 100% of basketball players who played one NBA game were sufficiently sourced with significant coverage, and still it wasnt approved as an SNG (Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 53 § Proposed amendment to basketball guideline). Reputable editors can fall back on GNG, but good luck to the NPPers who AfD in good faith, then get yelled at wrongly for not doing a WP:BEFORE. —Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Commment I'm not sure whether the intention was to tighten or loosen the standards in this area. Under common structural interpretations it loosens the standard because it adds another SNG "way in". Under how notability actually works the guidance it provides could also sometimes tighten the standard because it could often influence discussions where they are edge case regarding GNG. A whole lot of sports articles are dependent on a lenient interpretation of GNG to get through and an SNG can provide guidance to influence such decisions. Folks who say the the sports SNG is dead should keep this possibility in mind as a way to help provide much-needed notability guidance on sports articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  A whole lot of sports articles are dependent on a lenient interpretation of GNG ...: A whole lot of articles but probably most from a few select sports. —Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Truth be told such is common about articles in general. But sports is unique in one way. It the one area where the coverage itself is a major form of entertainment. And so it's very large in quantity but also a given coverage is less indicative. Also the nature of that large amount of coverage is that it seldom achieves full GNG depth or even near-full GNG depth. I do a lot of NPP work and try to learn the AFD "middle of the road" and use it. IMO the "middle of the road" is 1 or 2 sources in the article that are like 2/3 of GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  There is no specific intention for tightening/loosening, it is more so just to have it so these articles fall under an SNG. It would be more loosening I guess, since it expands criteria that didn't exist. However, it will also help on tightening standards since there are also cases where articles are creating WP:TOOSOON. Not sure if this answers your question. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks and a useful clarification. I was also commenting on the dual effect of SNG's. North8000 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion regarding standalone articles for CFP first round, non-bowl, games

A discussion is currently being held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Standalone CFP first round articles to determine consensus on whether each of the new individual College Football Playoff (CFP) first round, non-bowl, games also each warrant standalone articles. This could affect criteria #3 of WP:SPORTSEVENT on this page, which states that only college bowl games -- regardless if part of the CFP or not -- qualify for separate standalone articles. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#SPORTSPERSON

Discussion relevant to this project. Cbl62 (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)